2026:HHC:29443 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 765 of 2024 Date of decision: 15.07.2026. Basanti Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Bhagmal ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Panday, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Prakash Chand, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, H.P. dated 17.09.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner was allowed and the order as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., was modified, whereby the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. 2. The facts that emerge in the present case are that the present petitioner/wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the application, it was averred that she got married to the respondent, however, he 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- has failed to maintain her in a proper manner. She stated that after the death of the first wife of the respondent in the year 2009, he solemnized marriage with the present petitioner and she started living with the respondent at Gram Panchayat, Dasholi. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the children of the respondent maltreated and ill-treated her and they treat her like their servant. It has been stated in the application that the children of the respondent abuse the petitioner. It has been averred that the petitioner has been kept by the respondent at a place called Jubbar, where he is having his house and land. 4. It has been averred in the application that after consuming liquor, the respondent gives beating to petitioner. He neither gives any money nor maintains her in a proper manner. Further, it has been stated in the application that the respondent gives threatening to her that he shall kill her. Therefore, the application was filed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act to take appropriate action against the respondent. 5. The respondent contested the application as filed by the petitioner by refuting and denying all the averments as made in the application. In reply to the application, it has been stated that he never leveled any accusation against the -3- petitioner and all the allegations as leveled against him are afterthought, incorrect, and misleading. It has been stated that the petitioner is habitual of marrying and prior to solemnizing the marriage with the respondent, she was married to one Liak Ram, son of Sh. Khitu Ram, resident of village Tiprog. Thereafter, she married to Saku Khagta, resident of village Gianh, Poma, Tehsil Chopal. Further, she married to one Sh. Balbir, who was a technician in a Telephone Exchange, Bharanoo, Bilaspur. Then, thereafter, she married to one Sh. Pratap of Majhgaon, Kawanoo in Uttarakhand, and one Ramesh of Kangra District. It has been admitted that after the death of his first wife, he got married to the present petitioner as there was no one to look after him. 6. As per respondent, the petitioner married him and demanded rupees one lakh and the said amount was given by him to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent purchased ornaments to the tune of Rs. 2.25 lakhs, which are in the care and custody of the petitioner. The respondent is looking after the present petitioner and he also got treated her when she fell ill and spent a sum of rupees one lakh on her treatment as her uterus was removed. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is residing in the newly constructed house of the respondent, which is situated in village Jubbar, Gram -4- Panchayat, Makrog. The house has been constructed for the family of the respondent and he is residing with his two sons and daughter and he requires this house for his son as his another son is residing in village Dasholi. 7. As per respondent, the petitioner is a quarrelsome lady and picks up fights with the respondent without any rhyme or reason. She is insisting that respondent should purchase gold bangles for her and that the allegations of giving beating to the petitioner are false and incorrect. It has been stated that the respondent has no source of income, as he has only four bighas of land in his name, which is in the possession of the petitioner and she is earning from the orchard. 8. The learned trial court framed the issues in the matter in the following manner:- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief provided under Sections 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Domestic Violence, as prayed? OPP 2. Relief.” 9. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., vide its order dated 24.06.2022, allowed the petition filed by the present petitioner and directed that the petitioner is entitled for protection and the respondent was prohibited from committing or abetting any act of domestic -5- violence against the petitioner. He was directed to provide rented accommodation to the petitioner and that the level of accommodation should be as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to provide her rent which is assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further, the respondent was directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was also awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the respondent. 10. Feeling dissatisfied against the order as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal, dated 24.06.2022, the petitioner instituted an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for the enhancement of amount of the maintenance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, vide its judgment dated 17.09.2024, partly accepted the appeal and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/-. Further, the respondent was prohibited from dispossessing the applicant from one room, one kitchen, one washroom and one toilet being occupied by her in village Jubbar. The respondent was directed not to disconnect the electricity and water connections of the petitioner in the accommodation which is being occupied by her. Further, the respondent was directed not to alienate the land wherein the -6- aforesaid house of the respondent is situated at village Jubbar and wherein the petitioner is residing, so that she can use the same for her day-to-day living. 11. That still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/wife has approached this court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders as passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned First Appellate Court are being assailed on the limited ground that the amount of maintenance which has been granted by the learned courts below is inadequate and the amount of maintenance deserves to be enhanced. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least Rs. 15,000/- be awarded in the form of maintenance to the petitioner so that she could look after and maintain her, in her old age. 14. On the other hand, the impugned judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, has been defended by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffers from any infirmity and the amount of Rs. 6,000/- which has been awarded is legal, valid and it does not require any enhancement. -7- 15. In order to substantiate her case, the present petitioner has filed her affidavit, Ext. PW1/A. She has stated that the respondent is her husband and she is residing with him as his wife. She has stated that the respondent and his family members torture and ill-treat her and they treat her like their servant. She stated that the respondent has kept her in village Jubbar just to harass her. The respondent in the state of intoxication gives beating to her and he never maintains her or gives money for her day-to-day expenses. She has stated that respondent usually threatens her to oust her from the house and he also threatens her that she shall be killed. 16. In her affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the present respondent has got the landed property in two villages consisting of one orchard and he is also having four houses. It has been stated that the annual income of the respondent is more than Rs. 80 lakhs from the orchard. She stated that since the respondent is not maintaining her, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent to pay the amount of maintenance and other reliefs as envisaged under the Domestic Violence Act. 17. In the cross-examination of the PW-1, she has denied the suggestions as made by the learned counsel for the respondent that she has instituted a false case against him in -8- order to grab his property. It has been denied that neither the respondent nor his family members ill-treat or maltreat her in the house. 18. In order to substantiate the case of the present petitioner, PW2 Shyam Singh has filed his affidavit Ext. PW2/A. In the affidavit, he has also reiterated the averments as made by the petitioner. He has stated that the respondent gives beating to the present petitioner and in order to harass her, she has been kept at village Jubbar. He has further stated that the respondent is not maintaining her and his endeavour is always to turn the petitioner out of his house. It has been stated that the present respondent is the owner in possession of an orchard and he is a man of means. He has stated that since the petitioner cannot earn her livelihood, therefore, appropriate orders may be passed by the court. 19. In order to rebut the case of the petitioner, respondent has filed his affidavit Ext. RW-1/A, whereby he has reiterated the averments as made in the reply. He has stated that he has taken all steps to keep the petitioner happy and after the marriage, he has constructed a two storied house wherein they both are living. He has stated that he deposited a sum of rupees one lakh on 30.10.2012 in UCO Bank, Baragaon and after maturity, the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner -9- on 05.11.2016 and she has purchased the gold ornaments for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. He has stated that he is having only 9 bighas of ancestral land, but the brothers of the respondent have given him three and half bighas of land and a fruit-bearing apple orchard has been planted by him thereon and crop worth rupees 2 to 3 lakhs is harvested from it by the petitioner since 2017. It has been stated that petitioner is a quarrelsome lady and she demands money, gold, house, land and orchard from the respondent. He has got no other source of income except the earning from this small apple orchard. He has stated in the affidavit that he has two sons and a daughter from his deceased wife and they are living on the agricultural land, gifted to them by their maternal grandmother. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he used to maltreat and ill-treat the present petitioner. He has denied that after consuming liquor, he gives beating to the petitioner. He admitted that the present petitioner remains ill and she was also operated. 20. In order to corroborate the versions of the respondent, Sh. Liaq Ram filed his affidavit Ext. RW2/A. In the affidavit, he has stated that the petitioner is living in the newly constructed house of the respondent, but now she does not allow the respondent to use the remaining portion of the house and she wants to grab the entire house and property of the -10- respondent. He has stated that the respondent is an old man and suffering from various ailments and is undergoing treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the petitioner has got no independent source of income. 21. RW-3 Narinder Azta has been examined by the respondent. RW-3 filed his affidavit Ext. RW3/A. He has stated that the petitioner is guilty of cruel behavior towards the respondent. He has stated in the affidavit that the respondent has no source of income and remains ill. He denied the suggestion that the respondent used to ill-treat the present petitioner. 22. Respondent has examined RW-4, Jai Ram in order to corroborate his case, who filed his affidavit Ext. RW4/A. He has stated that the petitioner picks up quarrel with the respondent every day and lodges false complaints with the SDM, Police Station and other Departments of H.P. In his cross-examination he admitted that the petitioner was operated and on that account, she could not earn anything. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. 23. Except the oral evidence as placed on record, nothing has been placed on record by the respective parties to show the total annual income of the respondent. -11- 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that he has approached this court only for enhancement of the amount of maintenance, which has been awarded by the learned courts below. He submits that as far as the other part of the orders are concerned, he is not aggrieved by the same. However, he has filed the present petition only for the enhancement of amount of maintenance. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the increase in the price index, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- which has been awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, is inadequate, and the same cannot be presumed to be a handsome amount for the maintenance and for sustaining the present petitioner. 25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has no source of income and he is totally dependent on his children. 26. Chapter IV of the DV Act, 2005, lays down what kind of reliefs can be granted to a person aggrieved who has been subjected to any act of domestic violence. There are different categories of reliefs which can be granted under the DV Act, 2005. These reliefs can be sought either by making an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 or by making an application in pending legal proceedings affecting -12- aggrieved person before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court. One of the reliefs provided under Section 20 reads as follows:- “Monetary reliefs.-(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to,— (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force. (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in-charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 in case titled Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, decided on19.05.2025 has held that the -13- Domestic Violence Act is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women, who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing the acts of domestic violence. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 has held as under: “41.As noticed above, from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act was enacted to fulfill the definite objectives for protection of women. This Court had occasion to examine the purpose of enactment of Act, 2005 in Kunapareddy Alias NookalaShanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Anr., (2016) 11 SCC 774 wherein paragraph 12 following was stated:- “12.In fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. Intention was to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family as the civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is treated as an offence Under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The purpose of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It is for this reason, that the Scheme of the Act provides that in the first instance, the order that would be passed by the Magistrate, on a complaint by the aggrieved person, would be of a civil nature and if the said order is violated, it assumes the character of criminality…..” 42. The Act, 2005 is a further step to secure social justice by legislation. There has been several earlier measures for protection of women like Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 498-A of India Penal Code. Justice Krishna Iyer in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 70 noted the objectives of enacting Section 125 Cr.P.C. in following words in paragraph 9:- “9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that -14- sections of statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause--the cause of the derelicts.” 29. For the grant of maintenance, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able- bodied person. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial dispute depends on the financial status of the lady and the standard of living that she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. 30. Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or -15- the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. 31. After examining the oral evidence as placed on record it reveals that both the parties are in the advanced stage of their life. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petitioner is more than 64 years old and the respondent is more than 75 years old. Though, no substantial proof or evidence has been placed on record for the enhancement of the amount of maintenance, but keeping in view the totality in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record that the respondent is owner in possession of an orchard and he is also owning four houses in the native place, therefore, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the fact that she is residing all alone and she has no children to look after her and in view of increase in price index, this court modifies the order as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, by enhancing the amount from Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 8,000/- per month. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner from the date of passing of the order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla. -16- 32. With these observations, the present petition as filed by the petitioner/wife is partly allowed and the impugned order as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla is modified to the above extent. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 15th July, 2026. (kck)